Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones

We reviewed our experience with the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones in 100 consecutive patients treated laparoscopicaly during the past 9 years (1990—1998) and evaluated the advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of the treatment, to elucidate reasonable therapeutic strategies for patients harboring CBD stones. We conclude that the most rational management of CBD stones is that which is decided according to the size of the CBD, which, in turn, depends on the size, number, and location of stones. The cystic duct in patients with a non‐dilated CBD is narrow, because the size of the CBD depends on the size and number of stones that have migrated through the narrow cystic duct, and the stones in the non‐dilated CBD are therefore usually small in size and number. Patients with a dilated CBD, however, are good candidates to undergo single‐stage laparoscopic treatment. In our Department, therefore, even if complete removal of stones has failed in patients with non‐dilated CBD, further choledochotomy is not carried out, and a C‐tube is placed through the cystic duct for a subsequent postoperative transduodenal approach, because laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration and choledochotomy may not be always feasible in those patients with non‐dilated CBD, and spontaneous migration of small stones into the duodenum is frequently noted. In fact, some stones demonstrated on intraoperative cholangiograms were not revealed by postoperative cholangiography. In contrast, retained stones detected postoperatively were successfully removed by postoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), the endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation technique (EPBDT), or postoperative cholangioscopy (POCS) without any injury to the sphinter of Oddi. With this approach, we believe that the causes of stone recurrence can be avoided in the majority of cases.     

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones: transcystic approach and choledochotomy

The purpose of this study was to review our experience with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration by the transcystic approach and choledochotomy. We selected the transcystic approach for patients whose CBD stones were less than five in number and smaller than 9mm in diameter, and whose CBD was less than 15mm in diameter on cholangiograms. Among 217 patients with CBD stones treated laparoscopically, the transcystic approach was performed successfully in 91 of 104 patients in whom it was attempted (87.5%). The other 126 patients underwent laparoscopic choledochotomy, followed by ductal closure with transcystic drainage in 59, T‐tube drainage in 46, primary ductal closure in 19, and choledochoduodenostomy in 1. Choledochotomy was converted to open surgery in only 1 patient. The transcystic approach was associated with shorter hospital stay and less morbidity than choledochotomy. However, choledochotomy also had an acceptably low rate of complications. Bile leaks occurred more frequently in those with primary ductal closure than in those with transcystic drainage or T‐tube drainage. Residual stones were found in 2 patients with the transcystic approach and in 10 with choledochotomy. The residual stones were removed through the T‐tube tract by choledochoscopy in 7 of these 10 patients. From these results we conclude that laparoscopic management of CBD stones is feasible for almost all patients with CBD stones. It is considered to be safe and effective and has the advantage of being a single‐stage procedure.     

Laparoscopic choledochotomy for bile duct stones

In the era of laparoscopic surgery, treatment strategies for common bile duct stones remain controversial. Laparoscopic choledochotomy is usually indicated only when transcystic duct exploration is not feasible. However, laparoscopic choledochotomy provides complete access to the ductal system and has a higher clearance rate than the transcystic approach. In addition, primary closure of the choledochotomy with a running suture and absorbable clips facilitates the procedure. Therefore, to avoid postoperative biliary stenosis, all patients with bile duct stones can be indicated for choledochotomy, except for those with nondilated common bile duct. Placement of a C‐tube also provides access for the clearance of possible retained stones by endoscopic sphincterotomy as a backup procedure. C‐tube placement, in contrast to T‐tube insertion, is advantageous in terms of a relatively short hospital stay. In conclusion, laparoscopic choledochotomy with C‐tube drainage is recommended as the treatment of choice for patients with common bile duct stones.     

Common bile duct stones: management strategies in the laparoscopic era

We reviewed our experience with the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones in 70 patients by sequential endoscopic-laparoscopic management and single-stage laparoscopic treatment during the past 7 years. The advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of the two procedures are discussed to elucidate therapeutic strategies for patients harboring gallbladder stones and associated choledocholithiasis. In 44 patients, sequential endoscopic-laparoscopic management was indicatedd, and was successful in 37 of them but, in seven patients endoscopic stone extraction could not be accomplished. Single-stage laparoscopic treatment was attempted in 26 patients. In practice, laparoscopic transcystic common duct exploration or choledochotomy may not always be feasible if the cystic duct or CBD are not dilated; there is a high risk of intraoperative CBD injury in such circumstances. Laparoscopic management was considered to be especially useful for the treatment of numerous, large or difficult stones, because stone removal could be succesfully performed without any injury to the papilla of Vater. This last issue is of particular importance in patients with dilated CBD, because insufficient opening of the ampulla of Vater made by endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) may lead to stasis and reflux-related complications such as cholangitis and recurrent stones. We conclude that the most rational management of CBD stones should be decided according to the size of the CBD, which depends on the size, number, and location of stones. Patients with dilated CBD are indicated to under-go laparoscopic single-stage treatment and combined endoscopic-laparoscopic treatment may be best for patients with non-dilated CBD.     

Technical aspects in the laparoscopic management of complicated common bile duct stones

The management of common bile duct (CBD) stones traditionally required open laparotomy and bile duct exploration. With the advent of endoscopic and laparoscopic technology in the latter half of last century, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become the mainstream treatment for CBD stones and gallstones in most medical centers around the world. However, in certain situations, ERCP cannot be feasible because of difficult cannulation and extraction. ERCP can also be associated with potential serious complications, in particular for complicated stones requiring repeated sessions and additional maneuvers. Since our first laparoscopic exploration of the CBD (LECBD) in 1995, we now adopt the routine practice of the laparoscopic approach in dealing with endoscopically irretrievable CBD stones. The aim of this article is to describe the technical details of this approach and to review the results from our series.     

Laparoscopic C-tube drainage via cystic duct following common bile duct exploration

Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration has come into practice with the development of laparoscopic techniques and instrumentation. However, the use of a T-tube for biliary drainage lessens the advantages of laparoscopic surgery, i.e., short hospital stay and good cosmesis. We have performed CBD exploration by laparoscopic chledochotomy followed by transcystic biliary drainage using a 6 French vinyl tube (C-tube) instead of a T-tube and primary closure of the choledochotomy. The C-tube could be removed within 7 days postoperatively because the cystic duct was ligated with an elastic thread. Twelve patients with CBD stones were successfully treated by this new technique and there was no morbidity attributable to the procedure.     

Laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct through a choledochotomy: Report of three cases

This article reports three cases of totally intraabdominal laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct via a choledochotomy with extraction of stones. The patients had failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) stone extraction because of the size of the stones in two instances, and in the third, because of the presence of a duodenal diverticulum. This procedure is a promising solution to the problem of large common bile duct (CBD) stones in centers which have established laparoscopic cholecystectomy expertise.     

Spontaneous passage of common bile duct stones in jaundiced patients

BACKGROUND:Common bile duct(CBD)stones are known to pass spontaneously in a significant number of patients. This study investigated the rate of spontaneous CBD stones passage in a series of patients presenting with jaundice due to gallstones.The patients were managed surgically,allowing CBD intervention to be avoided in the event of spontaneous passage of CBD stones. METHOD:Retrospective analysis of patients presenting with jaundice due to CBD stones,and managed surgically with laparoscopic cholecystectomy ...     

Comprehensive review on small common bile duct stones

Common bile duct stones are among the most common conditions encountered by endoscopists. Therefore, it is well researched; however, some items, such as indications for endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation(EPBD), safety of EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy or direct oral anticoagulant, selection strategy for retrieval balloons and baskets, lack adequate evidence. Therefore, the guidelines have been updated with new research, while others remain...     

Management of common bile duct stones: controversies and future perspectives

BACKGROUND: The advent of endoscopic and minimally invasive techniques for diagnosis and treatment has revolutionised the management of bile duct stones. Yet several controversies still surround the optimal means of investigation and treatment. DISCUSSION: Scoring systems that classify patients according to their risk of harbouring bile duct stones are likely to decrease the number of unnecessary preoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatograms (ERCPs) at the expense of a higher rate of positive intra-operative diagnosis, unless magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is used to supplement the clinical information. The current treatment that is generally preferred for patients with a high probability of bile duct stones is ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but the routine use of ERCP in this context has certain limitations. An alternative approach is offered by carrying out the necessary cholangiogram during LC. Laparoscopic choledochotomy requires technical skill and costly equipment and should usually be followed by T-tube drainage of the duct. A recent survey in Spain has shown that most surgeons prefer ERCP plus LC, but one recent randomised controlled trial showed advantages for the single-stage laparoscopic treatment of bile duct stones in terms of a shorter hospital stay; success rates and complication rates were similar for the two procedures. The authors support the consensus statement that the choice of diagnostic and therapeutic strategy should depend on local circumstances and available expertise.     

处置困难胆总管结石1例治疗体会

采用常规取石技术仍未能取出的结石,被认为是处置"困难"的胆总管结石。现将我院收治的1例处置困难的胆总管结石患者治疗经过和治疗体会报道如下。     

Endoscopic sphincterotomy and mechanical basket lithotripsy for management of difficult common bile duct stones

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for removal of stones is a major therapeutic advance in the management of choledocholithiasis. However, this technique, using a standard Dormia basket or balloon catheters, often fails with large stones (exceeding 15mm in diameter). Mechanical basket lithotripsy (MBL) has been developed to overcome this deficiency. With recently improved devices, consisting of an entirely, i.e., one self-contained system which can be used without removing the endoscope, the overall efficacy of stone removal is more than 93%, regardless of the size of the stones. This MBL is a simple, safe, effective and inexpensive procedure in experienced hands and has emerged as the procedure of choice for endoscopic management of difficult stones.     

Two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones

AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.METHODS: Four databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index up to September 2011, were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers. The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct, postoperative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures, number of procedures per patient, length of hospital stay, total operative time, hospitalization charges, patient acceptance and quality of life scores.RESULTS: Seven eligible RCTs [five trials (n = 621) comparing preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); two trials (n = 166) comparing postoperative ERCP/EST + LC with LC + LCBDE], composed of 787 patients in total, were included in the final analysis. The meta-analysis detected no statistically significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance from the common bile duct [risk ratios (RR) = -0.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.24 to 0.04, P = 0.17], postoperative morbidity (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10, P = 0.16), mortality (RR = 2.19, 95% CI: 0.33 to 14.67, P = 0.42), conversion to other procedures (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.70, P = 0.39), length of hospital stay (MD = 0.99, 95% CI: -1.59 to 3.57, P = 0.45), total operative time (MD = 12.14, 95% CI: -1.83 to 26.10, P = 0.09). Two-stage (LC + ERCP/EST) management clearly required more procedures per patient than single-stage (LC + LCBDE) management.CONCLUSION: Single-stage management is equivalent to two-stage management but requires fewer procedures. However, patient’s condition, operator’s expertise and local resources should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.     

Temporary use of an accuflex stent for unextractable common bile duct stones

Endoscopic management has become the main therapeutic approach for the extraction of common bile duct (CBD) stones, and successful removal can be achieved in 80-90% patients using conventional balloon and basket techniques. However, if it is difficult to completely fragment a stone, or to clear the CBD, which may occur for a variety of reasons, the therapeutic problem will remain. When bile duct stones can not be removed, a viable management option is to place a biliary stent to ensure drainage. However, recent studies of long-term biliary stenting, with a plastic stent, showed a relatively high rate of morbidity and mortality. We report an alternative, unique treatment for unextractable common bile duct stones, using the temporal placement of an expandable metallic stent (EMS) to facilitate passage of fragments through the papilla.     

Endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct calculi in patients without stones in the gallbladder

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) was performed in 25 patients for common bile duct (CBD) calculi in the absence of stones in the gallbladder. Eighteen of these patients were considered unfit for surgery because of age or concomitant disease. All ES procedures were technically successful with complete evacuation of the CBD in all cases. Early complications occurred in only one patient, a 91-year-old female who died from nonbiliary tract disease. Long-term follow up over a period of 42 months was available in 19 of the 24 patients. Late complications occurred in two patients (10%), both of whom developed cholecystitis; they underwent surgery without subsequent morbidity or mortality. This 10% incidence of long-term complications is similar to that of other series that did not differentiate between patients with isolated CBD calculi and those with stones also present in the gallbladder. The observed complication rate does not justify routine prophylactic cholecystectomy after ES for isolated CBD stones.     

The case for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

The modern surgeon's approach to choledocholithiasis depends his or her view of cholangiography. During the early 1990 there was a swing away from cholangiography, which had previously been common practice. This was because of perceptions of difficulty with the technique, the time it took, and perhaps an implied increase in costs because of the time factor. There was no evidence on which to base this decision. This led to a marked upswing in the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There were a large number of ERCPs with normal results performed prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This paper states the case for intraoperative cholangiography and common bile duct clearance at the time of cholecystectomy. It is hoped that this technique will be adopted so patients can undergo a single procedure to remove their gallstones and common bile duct stones if they exist and to decrease the incidence of normal preoperative ERCPs and the need for a second procedure postoperatively to clear stones if they are found.     

Meta-analysis of one- vs. two-stage laparoscopic/endoscopic management of common bile duct stones

Background

The present study is a meta-analysis of English articles comparing one-stage [laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or intra-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)] vs. two-stage (laparoscopic cholecystectomy preceded or followed by ERCP) management of common bile duct stones.

Methods

MEDLINE/PubMed and Science Citation Index databases (1990–2011) were searched for randomized, controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. Outcomes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.1.

Results

Nine trials with 933 patients were studied. No significant differences was observed between the two groups with regard to bile duct clearance (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65–1.21), mortality (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.32–4.52), total morbidity (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53–1.06), major morbidity (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.60–1.52) and the need for additional procedures (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.76–3.30).

Conclusions

Outcomes after one-stage laparoscopic/endoscopic management of bile duct stones are no different to the outcomes after two-stage management.     

Single-session minimally invasive management of common bile duct stones

Up to 18% of patients submitted to cholecystectomy had concomitant common bile duct stones. To avoid serious complications, these stones should be removed. There is no consensus about the ideal management strategy for such patients. Traditionally, open surgery was offered but with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) minimally invasive approach had nearly replaced laparotomy because of its well-known advantages. Minimally invasive approach could be done in either two-session (preoperative ERCP followed by LC or LC followed by postoperative ERCP) or single-session (laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or LC with intraoperative ERCP). Most recent studies have found that both options are equivalent regarding safety and efficacy but the single-session approach is associated with shorter hospital stay, fewer procedures per patient, and less cost. Consequently, single-session option should be offered to patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiaisis provided that local resources and expertise do exist. However, the management strategy should be tailored according to many variables, such as available resources, experience, patient characteristics, clinical presentations, and surgical pathology.     

一步法和分步法治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者疗效及并发症分析

目的 探讨一步法与分步法手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者的疗效.方法 2016年1月～2019年6月我院诊治的胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者152例,其中87例接受一步法手术,即行腹腔镜胆囊切除(LC)和胆总管探查取石(LCBDE)术,65例接受分步法手术,即行内镜逆行胰胆管造影/乳头括约肌切开(ERCP/EST)和LC...